The images are presented in categories, but you can vote for as many as you like, in as many categories as you like. (The categories are just so you don't have to look at hundreds of images at once.) The top 28 images will make it to the final.

Are there no standards whatsoever on Wikiquote? A page on my real life identity as Chip Berlet was created here for the sole purpose of inserting a nasty quote out of context into a Wikipedia entry where the quote had already been deleted by admins for violating rules on Biographies of Living Persons. What is even more outlandish, is that my request for deletion was refused. Is there no one here willing to deal with the fact that Wikiquote is being used to violate Wikipedia guidelines on defamation? --Cberlet 02:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there is nothing defamatory in Wikiquote accurately reporting that a notable quote was uttered by a notable person about another notable person. However, I think the quote in this case is garbage, and am troubled by the personal-attack nature of the entry, and the lack of anything other than that lending balance to the page. I think we should delete the quote as a precautionary measure until we have discussed and resolved the propriety of this situation. BD2412T 02:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the discussion had extended to this page. I had seen the comment on the article's talk page, and though I disagreed with a request for it's speedy deletion, I basically agreed there was an imbalance that should be remedied, which I attempted to begin by adding a couple quotes from an article I found after a brief search. Unlike Wikipedia which is primarily engaged in creating statements, we are primarily engaged in presenting them, and our criteria for inclusion and exclusion cannot be the same as Wikipedia's.—This unsigned comment is by Kalki (talk • contribs) .

I have done as BD2412 has suggested. Personally, I think the quote should be deleted for the same reasons as outlined in WQ:QLP, it appears to be a non-notable quote, not in the neutral point of view, that was only brought here to defame someone. Cbrown1023talk 03:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with BD2412, except on one thing. I think it can be speedy-deletion subject per request by the affected person. Not oversight, but deletion of related revisions, since the request doesn't come from the formal and legal channel via Foundation Legal Counsel. --Aphaia 03:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The affected person really has no rights over what we present - imagine if, say, Hillary Clinton or John McCain were to take issue with our entries on them! The fact that we limit ourselves to entries on notable persons inherently means that we are speaking on figures of public interest, which is the First Amendment test for immunity to suit for defamation, so long as we act without malice. Even if the purpose of the original poster was malicious, so long as the quote is accurate (i.e. the person claimed to have said it did, in fact say it) we have no legal issue. But, as has been noted above, there's nothing "notable" about it, even if the speaker happens to meet 'pedia notability guidelines. BD2412T 04:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of double standards. Justin Raimondo is a notable person with his own page here; many of the quotes on that page are attacks on living people. Should we not remove those quotes as well? Indeed, shouldn't we delete that whole article, because not a single quote there is notable?--Cato 10:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A close precedent is this VfD, where I argued that a biased collection of quotes from the subject himself violated NPOV. The reaction was "If you know of other interesting stuff that he said that makes him look less extremist then you're welcome to add it, but why try to censor accurate information that's already there?" (iddo999). The policy actually says "Quotations included in Wikiquote do not need to conform to NPOV, as they are reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual."--Cato 10:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cato, I think Justin Raimondo has some notable quotes, but I think his quote about Berlet is not one of them. Just because a person is notable does not make everything they utter a "notable quote" (or else we would include Bill Clinton's grocery list). That's why I have been struggling for these past several weeks to write up quotability guidelines. Raimondo's attack on Berlet is no novel turn of phrase, no clever, pithy use of words. It is a run of the mill attack, and thus excludable, certainly from an entry on Berlet. BD2412T 17:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The further we get away from objective criteria for inclusion, the more we encourage editors whose only goal is to promote or defame notable people with well-sourced quotes. But as I write this in a hurry, it's not obvious to me what kind of objective guidelines we can use. My gut feeling is that someone who is primarily notable for attacking others, or even just coming down hard on one side of an issue, may very well merit what seems to be an "unbalanced" article purely because their fame comes from this one-sided outlook (and the vilification they receive from their ideological opponents, who are often just as extreme). But how can we easily separate the true believers of [fill in the philosophy], who can't avoid having articles that reflect only contention, from those who present a broader set of views but who nevertheless attract notable, nasty quotes from a subset of those views? I have no idea of where the participant subjects in this particular situation fall in this spectrum, but this is a general challenge that is not going to go away with a few content disputes. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 12:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I protest this characterization of my work. I have written for major daily newspapers, have written peer review scholarly articles, am on the board of a peer review journal, and been quoted as an expert in mainstream media internationally. What is happening here is that a tiny handful of editors who object to my written material condemning bigotry, conspiracy theories, and credulous uncritical support for right-wing populism, have been Wikistalking me for many months. They cherry pick critical comments made about me, and plop them into Wikipedia. Now they are using Wikiquote. The idea that I am some sort of fanatic is unfair. I am not objecting to having a Wikiquote entry that traverses a range of views. I am objecting to lazy, clueless applications of poorly defined policies that allow Wikipedia and Wikiquote to be used to settle personal and political vendettas. That is the issue. I very much appreciate the debate happening on this page, and attempts to create a more balanced entry. --Cberlet 17:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WQ:QLP is a policy which verbalizes and is therefore an incarnation of one of our fundamental principle - Be nice, no bully. That said, Wikimedia project won't go to the direction "if it is legally okay, we are bold to do it".

IANAL and BD2412 is, so for the first point I appreciate his insight and am being persuaded. But the second point it not closely examined I am afraid. Or I miss a point or understand wrongly. Please let me know your opinion about that. And also I believe the Wikimedia project is one whole project consisting in several forms to carry a sum of human knowledge to every single individual. So I esteem greatly consistency between each Wikimedia wiki in particular its fundamental principles of behaviors and in the fundamental direction of content treatment. So if something is not accepted by a certain project in regard of legal concerns, specially US ones which may affect all Wikimedia project, another Wikimedia project are wise to learn from the precedent, say, issues around w:WP:BLP. --Aphaia 14:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know which of Justin Raimondo's quotes is more notable than his one about Berlet, and how we can possibly justify retaining his appalling attack on Benjamin Netanyahu (alleging that Israel had advance knowledge of the 7 July 2005 London bombings and failed to warn the UK because the bombings would serve Israeli interests) if we delete the one on Berlet. I would also like to know why we retained the highly POV collection of quotes from Ovadia Yosef on the grounds that it is a well-sourced article on a notable person yet we are not applying the same criteria here. Yes, we should be consistent with Wikipedia to the extent that they do not delete articles on notable people, even if the person concerned wants them deleted.--Cato 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I can give two possible answers:

As non-US resident, and non English native speaker, I don't know Mr. Berlet since recent (sorry, Mr. Berlet, if you feel offended). I am no Jew but know Mr. Netanyahu. I think their notability is substantially different: Mr. Berlet is less notable than Mr. Netanyahu. This difference may affect the treatment for their article.

Mr. Berlet complainted particularly on his article and it is an estabilished custom for Wikimedia project as a whole, so I understand, to delete the materials if they ask to get rid of, even before they choose a more formal way. Even we recommend the former one and appreciate their friendly notice rather than filing a suit to the court. Recently Florence Devouard said a similar thing, while it is a copyvio case. As an OTRS volunteer, on the contrary, I said, I haven't know any claim mail from Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Yosef. Village pump discussion either.

I noticed m:Comcom this discussion as well as other members or admins do, since claims from notable people may affect the Foundation's public relation. In the discuss I got those links from David Gerald. Giving a look to those links, I'm inclining to delete the whole current article, since it inherits the first revision ineveitably, and if they are resubmitted, blocking the editor who dare it.

Last not the least, I feel sorry Mr. Berlet seems not to learn from his Wikipedia sanction: not to deeply involved his own article. As hindsight, it would be better to contact us thorough email, (see Wikiquote:Contact us), not to try to delete it from his own hand. --Aphaia 21:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I was following the clear Wikipedia Arbcom advice of not editing my own article but using the discussion page and other mechanisms to seek relief. A private e-mail is hardly more open and transparent than asking in a public manner for people here at Wikiquote to look at the entry. This simply misrepresents the Arbcom discussions and decisions, which resulted not from me obsessively editing entries on my real life persona, but other editors maliciously placing negative mayerial on the entry as part of a personal or political vendetta that started while editing text on other entries. It would not be better to contact privately through e-mail, because that would mean there would be no discussion over policies and standards.--Cberlet 03:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Cberlet. However I disagree with you on two points. In my view you were not completely following the advice from our sister project,English Wikipedia's Arbcom. Your first action was not coming to this forum, but putting speedy request tag on that page. It would be far better than blanking, but technically still "editing your own article". Also while normal deletion request or comment on this page would be "asking in a public manner", but it was not your first attempt. Your action was (sorry for redundancy) request for speedy deletion which one sole admin may notice and process in most cases. Also I would like you to remind English Wikiquote is not ruled by any Wikipedia Arbcom, nor English Wikipedia Article for Deletion, while in this case I think they gave you a good advice. In general, without giving a background, it would be a weak argument "they said so, so it should be so here too." Otherwise the autonomy of each project may be harmed. I hope you keep trying to follow it and to avoid potential troubles here as well you are doing on our sister project. --Aphaia 04:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you realize Aphaia that for most average editors like myself the distinctions you find so important in your continuous effort to criticize me are for the most part totally incomprehensible disinctions without a difference. Do you have any idea how complicated this stuff is to a basic editor? I thought I was doing what I was supposed to do. And, yes, I am angry at the endless mindless policy esoterica posted here when what is really going on is that Wikiquote does not have the proper policies and guidelines to prevent cyberstalking vendettas from being carried out. Trolls are using Wikequote and Wikipedia as a sockpuppet for Wikipedia Review and other notorious cesspits of bad will. Favoring form over substance seldom results in a fair and equitable outcome. Wikilawyering rules the day, apparently.--Cberlet 23:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did I criticize you? I rather gave favorable comments of this incident, and currently only the editor who support for its deletion and all others are inclinig to keep it, while it is not helpful to point out you either unconsciously or not confuse those distinctions. I feel I am pointlessly criticized, so perhaps it would be better for all of us that I make this comment my last comment on this discussion. I hope Wikiquote community reaches the consensus very soon. Cheers. --Aphaia 01:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in a discussion of larger policies and a solution to the text on one entry. I am not trying to drive you away, and I hope you stay involved. I am suggesting that your focus on procedures is so esoteric as to have little constructive value to the current situation. That coupled with my inability to unravel your meaning through language differences makes for a frustrating dialogue.--Cberlet 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Chip Berlet use Wikipedia for self promotion and now he is angry that some people added criticism of him into "his" article. --Markzum 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Aphaia saying that because she has heard of Netanyahu, it is OK to make outrageous allegations about him? Is Aphaia saying that all that say Daniel Brandt had to do was ask for his article to be deleted and there was no need for the long series of AfDs and DRVs on his article? As for legal action, if Mr. Berlet is threatening anything does WP:NLT apply here?--Cato 22:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not threatening legal action, and never have against any Wiki entity. I am asking for sensible people here at Wikiquote to look at the situation, correct it in some reasonable way, and develop better guidelines and policies than currently exist.--Cberlet 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Exemplary ownership of articles. Cberlet probably thinks that Wikipedia article and Wikiquote page are his property. OK, maybe he doesn´t think that, but without a doubt he behave like that. For example here he wrote about pissing on his page or here he wrote also about his page. --Dezidor 10:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe most of us can agree the original comment plainly was both extreme and defamatory, but all the same I do not believe the article should be deleted or the quote of another notable person removed merely because of that. Though we might disagree with it, or doubt its honesty, it may have been sincere expression of that person's opinion. Even it it were not, simply discarding it because it is defamatory, corrupts some very important principles of free speech which I believe we have thus far been fairly good at maintaining, even when it comes to the expression of views many of us may not particularly like or believe to be accurate or valid at all.

Varying degrees of many forms of extremism, exaggeration, hypocrisy, prejudice and presumption can be exposed and combatted in various ways, and it is ultimately not only the most obvious and plainly extreme forms with which we must deal, but many subtler forms as well. Extreme scare-mongering is obviously often a strategy of many conspiracy theorists, but in milder forms it is also a strategy of many who would advocate extremes of "political correctness" even to the detriment of the principles of "free speech", and I don't believe expressions from any of the extremes of the social spectrum should be automatically excluded, merely because we ourselves may find many of them foolish exaggerations or even baseless slanders. Many notable quotes on the pages of many current and past past political and religious leaders and comedians would have to be discarded.

I much prefer to uphold the principles expressed by Thomas Jefferson: "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." It is often helpful for the wise to hone their own insights and arguments upon the dullness of others assertions, and not seek to exclude the blunt expressions of even the most biased entirely. Including some such comments can be helpful in this way, even where they do not contain any particularly valid insights for us to consider and appreciate.

Though people interested in many forms of fairness and accuracy can grow understandably very tired of confronting much of the false and often repetitious nonsense from extremists of many kinds, I believe people should generally practice their skills at defending of truth and combatting falsehood by more means than simply removing any comments that might be extremely unjust, or insisting that they be removed.

We should try to insure that no page ever becomes little else but a forum for the unjust defamation of anyone, but we should not simply remove any incident of defamation which may occur in the comments of notable individuals. There would probably be many notable and famous quotes by political commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Al Franken or even from less strident celebrities like David Letterman and Jay Leno which would become off-limits to us.

The issue of removing defamatory remarks given unwarranted prominence in an an encyclopedia article where they are not essential information is far more clear than that of removing them from a compendium of quotations, especially in an age where defamatory remarks are especially common, from all quarters and all ranges of the political spectra. Neglecting to mention the most extreme of them or ignoring them and their abundance is not going to do much to make them go away, or reliably diminish their influence. We should all probably have at least some familiarity with the beliefs, opinions, and attitudes of the most extreme fanatics whether they be considered "left" or "right" and whether they happen to be "in" or "out" of popular favor.

If a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article they are notable enough for a Wikiquote article, if notable statements by or about them can be found. We might not agree with them, nor have much interest in creating articles or gathering quotes for or against them ourselves, but people on various sides of issues should for the most part be left free to do it, and intervention should occur only when there are some clear violations of established and necessary policies.

The bias of the creator of the page was fairly clearly against the subject, but that does not mean the page, or even the quote needs be removed, because it was apparently created by someone with malicious intentions.

Yesterday I revised the page a little and I had been making a further edit to add a favorable comment about Berlet which I had found, as a further counter to the original one, but there was an edit conflict, as the original quote was simply removed. I decided to pause in any involvement with the article at that point, as I didn't know much about either of these people, didn't have much time to spare, and thought it would be best to learn at least a bit more about the various adversaries before getting further involved in the issue. I've been too busy with numerous other things to spend much time here the last several days, and that is likely to remain the case for at least most of the next week or two, but I'm extending my comments on this matter today while I have a little time.

For the most part we have been good at maintaining standards of freedom of speech even for those most of us probably strongly disagree with, within the articles and on the talk pages about them. I recently encountered a troll whose heights of wit seemed to involve calling me a "wanker", and once it became clear I was dealing with little more than a troll I ceased to make any further attempt to engage in dialog, and simply removed comments plainly aimed at nothing more than insulting me, but I did not remove the discussion which had occurred prior to that. The troll actually had prompted me to express myself to some extent on a few matters I'd been meaning to for a while, and thus the time I spent responding to what initially seemed merely a vigorous complaint of a concerned editor was not time entirely wasted.

Learning how to competently examine and effectively address even the most ridiculous and contemptible viewpoints and expressions people can make is part of the process of life. That does not mean we should let any page remain a page of little else but unjust defamations, but neither should we seek to entirely exclude or automatically remove defamations.

I do believe that if we see some greivous slanders, exaggerations or plainly dishonest or unfair bias occurring we should try to provide at least a few remarks which provide some balance, or context, which is what I attempted to do after noticing the article yesterday. I certainly do not believe that there should ever be a policy that in all cases we should be required to always seek a full balance of contrary opinions, or otherwise we'd end up needing to seek a mass of glowing accolades to such murderous fools as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Osama bin Laden.

I have just expressed a few personal opinions of my own about a few people, and in my remarks I did not hesitate to call some of the worst of people fools, because I believe we are all fools to some extent, and know that I have been a fool many times. I think we can take great pride if we do not descend into being malicious or dishonest fools, but being an ignorant and confused fool is very often an inescapable part of the human condition. I do think it is an extreme foolishness to seek to focus primarily on the foolishness of others, as many people seem to do, or to exclude expressions of even some of the worst forms of foolishness entirely from a compendium of quotations.

As I have to get doing a few others things, and this comment is already rather long, has already made a few of the important points on my mind at least once, and I am beginning to digress a bit too much, I think I will simply end it here, and let others add their own persepectives to the discussion. ~ Kalki 03:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr Berlet says "that Wikiquote does not have the proper policies and guidelines to prevent cyberstalking vendettas from being carried out". This is a new allegation. What cyberstalking has been taking place here?--Yehudi 12:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a new allegation. It is why I came here to the Village Pump. Based on the broad definition found on numerous websites, I have been the victim of cyberstalking that began on Wikipedia many months ago, and then evolved into a flurry of nasty e-mails to me, several websites placing much false and defamatory information online, including posts from two former Wikipedia editors now banned in part for their bullying and nasty conduct regarding me (see for example Wikipedia Review and various pro Lyndon LaRouche websites).

False and defamatory information about me in articles in print publications and online publications have been referenced into the entry on my real-life persona on Wikipedia by persons with whom I have had prior editing disputes.

Most recently a quote from Justin Raimondo was posted on the Wikipedia entry on my real life persona Chip Berlet, and then removed by administrators for violating Wikipedia BLP rules. The quote was then added to Wikiquote in the Raimondo entry, by a new user who came here for the sole purpose of adding negative material about me. That new editor then created an entry on my real life persona here on Wikiquote, with the Raimondo quote added as the only text, and then this same editor went to Wikipedia to add a link to the Wikiquote entry on Chip Berlet to attempt to circumvent Wikipedia administrator oversight.

When I asked for a speedy deletion here, the editor who denied the request turned out to be an editor banned from Wikipedia for numerous abuses, and who is active on Wikipedia Review, a website with many false and nasty critical comments about me, as well as Wiki projects in general.

Nice smear, Chip. You can't argue the decision so you attack the admin. You're a credit to your clan. -- 70.89.238.178 01:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I call this cyberstalking - a mild case relatively, perhaps, but a clear case nonetheless. I realize that Wikipedia and Wikiquote are two different instituions, but the problem now involves both.--Cberlet 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that we can't operate in a vacuum - if a party is banned from Wikipedia based on that party's edits with respect to a certain subject, we should cast a skeptical eye when that party starts editing on a similar subject here. BD2412T 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cberlet: it is most unhelpful to make such remarks about an administrator here. It is also irrelevant; your argument is not with her, but with the bureaucrats and administrators collectively, none of whom has suggested that they would have done other than refuse your speedy delete request. And what has happened here is not stalking you by anyone's definition.--Cato 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cite the definition used by Wikiquote and a definition you consider useful,Cato. Thanks.--Cberlet 21:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition of the verb "to stalk": "Pursue or approach (game or an enemy) stealthily. Steal up to game under cover. Stride, walk in a stately or haughty manner." (Concise Oxford Dictionary) Clearly, there was nothing stealthy here; all actions were out in the open for everyone to see.--Cato 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not funny. Try citing a definition of the term "cyberstalking."--Cberlet 22:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, it is far more sympathetic if you provided a third party definition of what you considered it and then followed up with how this situation applied to that definition. You asking others to provide that definition only makes you look like someone looking for attention by arguing for argument's sake and no real issue.

As an outside observer all I see is someone with no prior WQ experience coming here and complaining about an article and wanting things done with it. Given the medium what has been provided, at best, is heresay. All we have is your word, as a semi-anonymous name on a screen, that you are who you say you are, that you are being "stalked" and that you want us to take action, now because you say so. It is up to you to present your case. You don't do that trying to corner others into presenting it for you. When you do outside observers, such as myself, write you off. -- Greyed 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

<-----It is not hard to check out what I say, since there is a full record going back over a year at Wikipedia. Forgive me for assuming that people posting comments here on Wikiquote would actually read the entire discussion. For those who have difficulty reading the entire discussion, or do not want to bother to scroll up, here is what was already posted in the way of evidence:

Let me know if I can offer any other assistance.--Cberlet 04:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the lede from the entry on "Cyberstalking" on Wikipedia:

Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone.

It has been defined as the use of information and communications technology, particularly the Internet, by an individual or group of individuals, to harass another individual, group of individuals, or organization. The behavior includes false accusations, monitoring, the transmission of threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sexual purposes, and any form of aggression. The harassment must be such that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.

Cited to: Bocij, Paul. Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family. Praeger, 2004, p. 14.

Y'know, I had a two paragraph reply all ready but decided it's not worth it. It's obvious at this point you're not gonna get it. I'll just leave you with these 2 key points.

I can't verify that you're who you claim to be.

False victimization. The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.(Bocij, Paul. Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family. Praeger, 2004, pp. 12-13.) -- Greyed 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How easy it is to simply dismiss the idea that a problem exists and needs to be solved. First, You could easily send an e-mail to Chip Berlet at Political Research Associates and ask if I am that person who is writing these posts. Second, If Wikipedia has had several arbcom rulings that discuss how I am being harassed, that might serve as an indication that this is not a fantasy.--Cberlet 13:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom has no standing here. Anyway, has it made any comment on how Cberlet is being treated here?--Yehudi 17:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is the solution to the larger issue of policies and the smaller issue of the entry?--Cberlet 03:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We could have a policy that nothing is permitted that is in any way disrespectful to a living person; this would require us to delete quite a lot. I would hesitate to go that far.--Yehudi 12:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be way too far. How about a system for flagging entries that appear very unbalanced in ways that could be corrected by the addition of more quotes? Kalki suggested this already.--Cberlet 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with flagging, as with so many other things here, is that Wikiquote doesn't have the active community focused effort to address most of its flagged-for-deficiencies problems. This inevitably leads to the situation we find ourselves in here, in which an publicly notable editor makes a plausible case for bias and cyberstalking that includes only well-sourced quotes, and finds tepid community will to either (A) remove the quotes and possibly block the stalkers; or (B) go find well-sourced, balancing quotes and add them. While this may seem like rude neglect to the victims, it's a reality the level of participation here. (Defame a TV show or a video game by questioning its characters' copiously listed unoriginal, contextless utterances, however, and you'll get an army of defenders.) Any policy or practice we implement should be practical given the likelihood of timely community attention to the problem article. (That's why I continue to support WQ:VFD as a problem-resolution arena — it's the only community forum here where articles must be dealt with in a specified timeframe.) ~ Jeff Q(talk) 01:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, that is a problem. Critical mass is a real issue.--Cberlet 02:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, some people may have had bad things said about them, but have no notable quotes of their own. Not every such situation can be resolved by seeking balancing positive quotes. We certainly should hold quotes about living people to higher standards of notability/quotability and verifiability (still working on a holistic proposal). BD2412T 02:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

About living people, I prefer the direction of German Wikiquote (and consequently of French Wikiquote): cite only from a source with full bibliographical data, and abolish "unsourced" section in their articles. --Aphaia 14:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how others feel, but it strikes me as grotesque that Cberlet is here asking for sympathy, saying that he is being defamed by a quote that claims he calls his opponents neo-Nazis, while simultaneously he is using the Wikipedia article on Public Interest Research to defame Fletcher Prouty, in effect calling him a neo-Nazi. I like irony as much as the next person, but this is over the top. --Portia 07:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome another newly-created single-purpose account! For the record, I never claimed or implied that Prouty was a neonazi. See discussion at Wikipedia here.--Cberlet 13:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Claimed, no. Implied, yes -- innuendo is your specialty. In the linked Wikipedia discussion, you get things rolling right away by insinuating that Brandt is a racist. Now, why would anyone call you a "political hit man"? --Portia 16:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll pardon me, "Portia", if I agree with Cberlet that your popping up on Wikiquote for the first time ever to make these sort of accusations lends no support to your credibility. But since you're here, how about helping us improve any of the thousands of entries that having nothing to do with the present controversy. Here's a list of some entries we'd like to have, to get you started. Cheers! BD2412T 17:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is in response to some of Cberlet's assertions about "cyberstalking" and what we should do about it here.

Frankly the definition of "cyberstalking" by Paul Bocij which is provided above might be a published one, and aimed at primarily the most extreme and obvious forms of it, but it is also so broad that it could include nearly any form of criticism posted on the internet, including some of your criticisms of various individual and groups, whose sympathizers seem to be intent on criticizing and harassing you. If we were to set up rules that forbid the quoting of any criticism that was likely to cause someone distress that would truly be a blow to the principles of free speech and not only the most pernicious or persistent forms of harassment.

I entirely agree that non-essential information can be properly excluded from WIkipedia articles, but I can't agree that distressing or even extremely erroneous statements by anyone notable enough for a Wikipedia article should be automatically excluded here. Whether they are posted by malicious parties or not shouldn't be our criteria for including or excluding them. If there develops a severe imbalance some of us might be interested in doing some work to remedy that situation, but the general rules and practices which are in place regarding resolution of disputes and edit-wars involve accurate sourcing and developing a clear consensus on the notability and relevance of quotes, not any mandate that the quotes themselves be fully accurate expressions of fact or posted by disinterested parties.

Problems exist in the willingness of many to criticize others, distort truth, exaggerate situations, and not all such problems are going to be solved by any official rules made in reaction to people taking offense at the criticism of others. You have publicly criticized people and groups on the internet (whether fairly or unfairly is not an issue here), and you have deemed it a problem which needs to be solved that they are left free to fairly or unfairly criticize you. Expressions by them distress you and expressions by you distress them. Most of us don't actually see that as a clear problem, even if determining the fairness or unfairness of various accusations and claims sometimes can be.

I believe some of the issues you address are interesting ones, and some of the people or groups you criticize are among those I might readily and vigorously criticize myself, but I don't feel that I should be protected in any way from their right to publicly criticize me, were I to make public criticisms of them. I generally prefer to criticize actions and attitudes rather than people but do not entirely refrain from the criticism of individuals and groups. Even though I do have the additional safeguard of some degree of internet anonymity, I do not consider the specific criticism of other people to usually be the most useful or important thing to spend my time in doing, but I believe that both you and they should be free to engage in it to your heart's content, anywhere you wish, so long as it does not violate the rights of others to ignore any of you, and attend to other things.

In dealing with some of the most extreme enthusiasts, conspiracy theorists and fanatics of all persuasions one might to some extent agree with Susan Sontag : "I envy paranoids; they actually feel people are paying attention to them." I do not believe we can ever attain a world free of various irritations, risks, dangers, and criticisms and very often those who most vigorously seek to totally eradicate some particular or peculiar types of them often themselves produce some of the most pervasive or pernicious dangers and injustices.

Though I recognize that vigorous opposition to false ideas and to immediate and real threats by others are sometimes necessary and proper, I generally believe that building upon what is good in people's ideas is usually far more effective at improving situations than focusing ridicule, derision and other forms of intense disapproval on many of their worst ideas. Yet the notions that anyone should be either forbidden from doing so, or be fully protected by others from many of the natural consequences of doing so are both ideas which I myself am vigorously opposed to. If those who are attempting to harass you create too much of an imbalance here, it will probably eventually be addressed. We certainly cannot promise that it will be immediately or thoroughly addressed to anyone's satisfaction.

We must all ultimately protect ourselves and others through our knowledge of important truths, and of how to effectively express and apply them, not by the official mandating of any presumptions which we may hold, including those that we possess wisdom and the right to express it which is absolutely superior to that of those we might be most inclined to criticize or condemn. ~ Kalki 17:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeez! Are you serious? I never have suggested that I want all criticism removed from the Wikiquote entry on my real life persona. I asked that the entry be inspected for balance and significance of quotes, and that editors here deal with the issue of malicious trolling as part of a long-term vendetta that qualifies as cyberstalking. Get a grip. No one is suggesting that al criticism needs to be excluded. No one. Re-read the entire discussion. No one. Someone suggested that I was not notable. Fine with me. But is you have an entry, the project has a responsibitly to deal with cyberstalking. The issue is that Wikiquote is being used as part of a cyberstalking campaign. Deal with that please. I get enough florid oratory following the presidential campaign. --Cberlet 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You should never dissimulate about what you have and have not said in a medium where all changes are recorded. Granted, you didn't say all criticism of your page be removed. You did, however, [request the entire page be removed]. Functionally the same thing. -- Greyed 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please. Angels on the head of a pin. There is no reason to have a Wikiquote page for my real life persona. I am not notable in terms of being quoted on any regular basis. The only reason the page was created in the first place was as part of a venemous personal attack. I still think the suggestion that the page be deleted makes perfect sense. As soon as it became clear that there was some sentiment to keep the page, I changed course. This is hairsplitting. I am amazed at how much energy editors here have to spend on avoiding the central issues. Should the entry remain? Yes or no? If the entry remains, it should be accurate, fair and balanced--Yes? If there is cyberstalking going on, serious ethical editors should discuss what policies are proper--Yes? --Cberlet 22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the issue of cyberstalking, last night someone created a Chip_Berlet account on Wikipdia, posted a Chip_Berlet cartoon without the proper copyright, then blanked my user page and replaced it with the cartoon. Wikipedia admins have now blocked the user erased the history page, forwarding it to the current page.--Cberlet 17:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikiquote:Quotability proposal I've been working on should go a long way to prevent cyberstalking types of entries, as it weighs heavily against recentism, and quotes by persons of minor notability about persons of minor notability. BD2412T 21:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like you have given the policy issues a lot of thought. I appreciate it.--Cberlet 12:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, but what I really need now is some concrete input on the language of the proposal. Cheers! BD2412T 22:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My first article is up for deletion, and I am not understanding notability on wikiquote very well. I cannot find the page like there is one on wikipedia to explain. There are quotes started on this page by famous BC personalities, since the deletion notice there are additions made explicitly referring to geographical features of BC. The quotation about the 2010 BC Olympics and by the Premier were deleted as per the deletion notice that they weren't good for the wikiquote article. Is there a page for newbies to wikiquote to help in the notability or what quotes should be here...? Thank you. SriMesh | talk 17:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I left Sri a long note on his WP talk page (where he prefers to receive communication) explaining in detail my objections to the quotes on the British Columbia page, and of course we have the Wikiquote:Votes for Deletion page to discuss specific issues with that page. But this would be a great place to address the topic of notability in general. --Ubiquity 16:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I read books. Typically copyrighted books. I take notes, of things I find surprising, or typical, and to which I may want to come back later or to relate to other books or ideas. I can see that there are already many similar case, e.g. Richard Dawkins. So, it is a priori appropriate to put them here? If so, good. Is there a procedure? Should one get an agreement? From the publisher? From the author? Has such an agreement been got already (since I find some existing quotes)? Can it be extended to new quotes? Why is that not in the FAQ? Where should I have looked for, then? Thanks. Marc Girod 19:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It falls in fair use case unless your note is so huge to be an excerpt of the book. The latter is considered as copyvio without written permission of the copyright holder (unnecessarily same with the author: it can be transferred). The permission should be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation by email (see Wikiquote:Contact us) directly from the copyright holder thus the right person who issues such. Why not in FAQ ... uh, it is no frequently asked question. But regarding to the current cases (see just the above as the example what is no-no), it would be a good addition. Cheers, --Aphaia 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Now, let's take the example of Richard Dawkins (by "the example above", did you mean Monty Python and the Holy Grail? I miss the insight that should be retrieved from this). Has any permission been asked about it already? Where would it have been recorded, in a way that I (as a new potential contributor) could check? How to express limitations to its extensibility? I can guess that a copyright owner could grant publication rights on a precise excerpt, or quite liberally (I'd be suspicious about the latter, in fact). After they'd be approached several times, they might want to specify some restrictions which would cover possible extensions, so that one would not bother them every time. Marc Girod 09:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The first comes under Category:Britons and the second under Category:Europeans. Is this intended to accommodate the different views our editors have on the political status of the Scottish people, or is it just a mistake? Antiquary 10:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the linked words are visible on my server. Is it a fault of my server or is something else wrong? Odd. Antiquary 10:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing them in the title, either. They're here on the edit page but all I see on the page itself is the word "and". -- Greyed 10:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There we go, forgot the leading colon so they were added at the bottom of the page and the Village Pump was added to those categories. -- Greyed 11:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To return to the question, I can't see any reason for two categories unless someone is trying to distinguish ethnic Scots from people born or living in Scotland. Even so, they are Britons!Poetlister 13:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to the discussion on Quotability above, I have started a policy draft on this difficult topic. Comment would be most welcome at Wikiquote talk:Quotability. Cheers! BD2412T 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am continuing to work on this, but I feel like I'm stabbing a bit blindly. I would really appreciate more community input, particular in the form of proposed language that should be incorporated into (or taken out of) this proposal. Cheers! BD2412T 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Grandmaster is my user name in en, ru and az:wikis, as well as commons, meta and wiki source. I wanted to register an account with the same name here, but found out that there's an account of User:Grand master, which has no edits, but judging from the content of his talk page made only one deleted edit back in August 2006, for which he was warned, and is inactive since then. I would like to change my username here to Grandmaster, since I use that name on other wikimedia projects, and considering that there's no established user with a similar name here, I hope this will be possible. Please see w:User:Grandmaster for the links to my accounts on other projects. Thank you. --Grand M 11:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

While logged in to Wikipedia, simply make a statement that you are requesting this name change here, and I will then rename your account as Grand M to "Grandmaster". ~ Kalki 17:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I am adverse to making or enforcing needless rules about anything, I perceive a growing need for a stronger statement of official policy rejecting the use of multiple subject headings within pages for people, and a clear statement against their overuse on theme pages.

Against previous guidelines, there has been a growing use of "subject headings" within articles for people and sub-headings within "Theme" articles. In my experience this is almost always being employed by people seeking to promote attention to some narrow POV agenda, whether extremely hostile or extremely favorable to some subject. I have done some cleanup on a few pages, but some editors continue to use such formatting primarily.

Past policy discussions have always deprecated the use of such headings on people pages, but without much in the form of clear guidelines on their use on theme pages. Within pages on themes there can be some greater justification of use of sub-headings but there remains great potential for extreme overuse (often very long lists of "subjects" with only with a single quote) and POV abuse with much presumption and even deception used in describing what quotes are "about." I believe that if there are disputes and no clear consensus for the use of some particular section heading arises it should not be used. Currently there has been an insistence on placing quotes primarily against "zionism" and for "terrorism on the page for Allah. And after my initial removal of one of these quotes it has been replaced and the current section headings created (ALL with just a single quote):

1.1 Allah in the Quran

1.2 Allah and Jews opposing Islam

1.3 Allah in HAMAS constitution

1.4 Roots of faith in Allah

I intend to remove these sections as unnecessary and the quote presumptively titled "Allah and Jews opposing Islam" to shoehorn a quote that is plainly about supporting terrorism against Jews and Israel onto the page.

In all my years here I recall only 2 incidents where I created any non-chronological "subject" sections on the people pages, and I regret doing so as a bad precedent. Both were many years ago, the most significant one being where many quotes by Thomas Jefferson on religious matters were exported from Wikipedia to here; with rather limited time to deal with a massive import and recognizing that Jefferson's religious views were one of the most frequent subjects of contoversy about him I decided to simply create a section for quotes on religious matters on the page. With the frequent overuse and abuse of such sections I have long since come to the conclusion that sourced quotes and sections for specific works on the people pages should be entirely chronological, with perhaps a few exceptions where later quotes on the same subject are immediately referenced in the comment below them, or some where a series of works are placed within their own section, independent of other works. I have meant to do such cleanup on the the Jefferson page and a few others myself, but haven't yet had the time to actually do it (or many other things). Currently it has only 4 non-chronological headings:

1.5 On religious matters

1.6 On race

1.7 On the judiciary branch of government

1.8 On financial matters

I intend to remove these and organize all the quotes in standard chronological format, but it might be a few days more before I get around to it.

A quick review of policy pages and past discussions has revealed to me some confusing deficiencies and errors on some of the pages, and I will probably do some work on pointing out, discussing, and correcting these within the next month or so. ~ Kalki 16:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Kalki on this, for the reasons above plus another. Most editors here don't seem to care whether quotes are sourced, and the articles that have these inescapably subjective headings are among the worst offenders in posting sourceless quotes. But sourcing is absolutely essential, not only for the reputation of accuracy we are trying to build, but also to the very survival of this project. Chronological order imposes an objective order to the quotes, points out their dated sources, reveals some of their source deficiences, and even provides an opportunity to see how quotees' views (or societies' views, for theme pages) change over time.

We cannot prevent agenda-pushers from trying to make arguments by loading articles with pointed statements (which are often memorable and can be reliably sourced) and then trying to "sell" them as a particular point of view instead just letting the words speak for themselves. But we can make it easier to fix or remove these efforts by discouraging these subjective groupings, instead encouraging the official scheme of grouping by sourced/unsourced and one of the two objective sub-schemes of chrono order (the other being alphabetical, which has its own problems in a multilingual compendium). Chronological order is also supported by its common use in printed compendiums. There remain problems for our collection, which can afford to exceed the books' limitations and therefore have additional organizational needs. But I suggest that they are not nearly as difficult as restraining agenda-pushers, especially given that the Wikimedia POV practices aren't as easy to implement when we cite many quotes by people made famous by their controversial POVs. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 17:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that subject headings for quotes are absolutely necessary for all articles. I know that it causes embarassments in some cases but it is also helpful in revealing things that people don't pay attention to.

At any rate, my 2006 Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia has sub-heading for quotes of people. For Machiavelli, the subject heading are "change," "church," "deception," "government,"..."self-interest"...It is the same for other people. Therefore, I am not a loner advocating outlandish ideas. In cases where the wording of subject headings cannot be agreed upon, those quotes should go under a ===Miscellaneous=== subject heading.

Lastly, concealing ideas can be part of an agenda.--Inesculent 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Concealing or denying an agenda can also be an idea many people have in their overuse and abuse of section headings. That an encyclopedia article has subheadings is entirely appropriate, but it was long ago determined here that, as much as possible, the use of non-POV chronological and alphabetical order should be used on the pages. I am stating that there should be an even stronger official policy statement of this, and guidelines developed to minimize the overuse and abuse that has occurred on many of the theme pages, where I concede they sometimes can be useful or even necessary. This means there will likely be disputes on the matter, but where disputes arise I am proposing that where the consensus does not clearly indicate that some particular section heading should be used, it should not be used. ~ Kalki 18:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

At first I agreed with you, Kalki. I dislike the agenda pushing that is evident on many contentious pages. However, after a little bit of thought I feel that this is the wrong way to go about it. I believe that section headers are a good thing on larger pages. Breaking down quotes from prolific figures in history by subject is, to me, a good thing. For example I would not want to read a page on Winston Churchill where his copious amounts of quotes are listed only in chronological order.

I feel that if we're going to have a policy which is admittedly provoked by agenda pushing then the policy should not address a symptom of the problem, it should address the problem. The sub-headings are a tool. Like any tool they can be used properly or abused. Why, then, worry about the tool if it is the abuse of the tool that is the problem? -- Greyed 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel there is no way to effectively and reliably constrain the overuse and abuse of section headings other than by such policies as actually have long been in use here, their more vigorous expression, and their extension to include some policies for the "Theme" pages, such as I am now proposing. The Winston Churchill page you point to actually uses no "subject" headings of sourced quotes but those dealing with chronological ordering of works or quotes. All of the section headings of the sourced quotes there are simply a sub-dividing of the standard chronological order of quotes, and chronological order of sections for works. That page is not one that would be affected at all. ~ Kalki 20:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Over the past week or two I've been trying to get some meaningful discussion on the topic of agenda pushing as it relates to two editors that I believe are one, Cdorman2 & 68.38.199.0. The issue is that these editors have systematically and exclusively edited Wikiquote pages to post highly negative quotations about members of the political right. In one case it was to remove a highly negative quotation of a member of the political left. The main page of contention is Rush Limbaugh, Talk:Rush Limbaugh and Fox News Channel.

Let me start from the beginning. On Fox News Channel68.38.199.0 posted several quotations which are clearly not in line with the page as stated not only on the page itself but on Talk:Fox News Channel by Kalki. In short they were quotations from Fox News and not about Fox News. It was those edits which got me to look further into the editing patterns of those two editors that in turn lead me to the large number of negative edits on the Rush Limbaugh page.

I reverted the edits of Fox News because it was a clear case. In fact one quotation which was added was one that had been previously removed by Kalki. However on the Rush Limbaugh page I figured that blanket reversions would not be the best course of action since it would probably result in an edit war. Because of that I sought advice from Aphaia on what to do. Aphaia suggested the NPOV tag with an appropriate mention on the talk page about why it was added. This I did.

The result is that two more IPs have joined in and basically created what I have sought to avoid, an edit war. Those IPs being 69.68.228.202 and 69.64.213.146. Both have repeatedly removed the NPOV tag without discussion on the talk page. I have readded the NPOV tag most times but Kalki did revert one and commented that it was appropriate even if with deficiencies. As I have noted on the talk page both of those IPs show the same pattern as the first two above. Exclusive edits to cast extremely negative comments on the political right.

Now, I know that there is going to be contention about these things. However I believe these are beyond the pale. Look at the diff histories of Cdorman2 & 68.38.199.0 and you will see extensive commentary about the quotations. For example this one from 68.38.199.0:

It‘s all coming from the haters on the far left. Just throw it in the garbage. But the regular folks who really enjoy this program, what we want you to ask, Laurie, is why do we do things? Why do we do them?

explaining to his ombudsman, Laurie Dhue, what to do about mail complaining about the low quality of Fox News Channel material; November 2007 [2]

And this one from Cdorman2:

There was no involvement whatsoever.

on WHAS-11, denying his office's spreading lies to the media about Graeme Logan, a brain-damaged recipient of S-CHIP funds, and his family, despite recovery of subject email (see below); October 19, 2007; Countdown

Hmm, just noticed that most, if not all, of their quotes are from MSNBC. I digress.

Now, my issue is not that there are negative things said about Rush Limbaugh or Fox News Channel or any other subject. My issue is that these editors are using Wikiquote in an obvious effort to push their agenda through the use of anti-right quotes. In fact in a [recent reversion] 69.86.228.202 stated "This page is not an adjunct of the Limbaugh fan club" which shows a misunderstanding of my position and certainly an unwillingness to discuss the issue. If anyone is curious as to why I say the above I encourage them to review my user page and contribution history, especially when it comes to talk pages and the village pump. For those who don't want to go digging let me just say that I am far from being a fan of Rush Limbaugh and have a history (albeit short, thus far) of opposing agenda pushing on pages where I would agree with the agenda being pushed!

Regardless astute readers will have figured out by now that I again had asked Aphaia for guidance on what to do. The two suggestions were to either take the discussion to a more public place, WQ:VP being that place, or to petition for the page to be protected. Since this whole mess started with me trying to avoid the adversarial approach I am appealing to the consensus here instead of attempting to force the issue on those pages through edit protection.

However, this is a larger issue than just 3-4 editors waging an ideological war on Wikiquote. I have attempted to find any policy which would inoculate Wikiquote from this abusive behavior. As I noted above in my reply to Kalki's thoughts on formatting tools can be used properly and abused. I will not deny that many of these quotes are properly sourced and fall within the letter of currently established Wikiquote policy. I, however, contend that most, if not all, of the quotes fall outside the scope of the pages they are on. Furthermore I think there should be some guidance on what to do with the hit-and-run agenda pushers who come to Wikiquote to post the latest negative commentary on people or policies they disagree with. It is clear that these people I have mentioned care not one whit about project as a whole. They have barely engaged in the discussions about NPOV, they habitually revert that which they don't agree with without commenting on why, and they post narrowly focused, ideologically driven quotations to ensure that their view and only their view is presented. I contend that behavior should be frowned upon, should be reacted to and should be clearly refuted by policy.

However why I am an enthusiastic editor on many different pages I am a recent editor and not completely immersed in established WQ culture. I take my lead from recent discussions by Jeff Q, Kalki, BD2142, Poetlister and Aphaia. What I perceive should be present may not jive with established culture. I am looking for clear guidance in these matters. Either some support for the position I have established and am defending or a reasoned argument on why I am incorrect and why I should back down. Hopefully in hashing that out it could dovetail into a broader policy on the issue or at least one hell of a page to direct new editors to when these things arise. -- Greyed 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a quote "by" Fox News. There are quotes about Fox News, some of which may be made on behalf of Fox News, or by Fox News spokespeople or employees. But the fact that something is said as part of a Fox News broadcast does not make it "by" Fox News any more than something said on The Tonight Show or My Name Is Earl is a quote "by" NBC. BD2412T 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that my language was a tad sloppy but I feel that it was understandable that the quotes removed were not about Fox News since they were broadcast on Fox News and uttered by Fox News employees for a Fox News program. Allow me to give one example...

So thank you for correcting me on the distinction but I feel it is irrelevant to the larger issue I posed about agenda pushing and how regular Wikiquote editors or Wikiquote as a project should respond to it. -- Greyed 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel the questions we should be concerned with most are not whether people have any particular agenda which they are pushing, so much as whether they are unfairly ignoring established guidelines and rules which constrain them from being too aggressive in their attempts to do so.

I have weighed in that the NPOV tag is probably one that should probably remain on the Limbaugh page for the foreseeable future, as the imbalance of quotes that have been added there is obvious, and to some extent probably unavoidable. I do feel that the NPOV tag should perhaps also be amended to reflect that when there is an imbalance to be corrected it should usually be done by the addition of relevant quotes, not removal of them.

Even though I myself might prefer to keep them very limited in number, I am not against including some very offensive and very biased and unfair quotations. There are growing efforts being encountered to censor some remarks that are arguably on subject, as well as efforts to include remarks that are off subject. There are some quotes in contention on that page and others which I would personally much prefer not to be there, and which I would not have added, but now that someone has, I do not feel they should be removed merely because they are offensive. Others might disagree, and though I have but little desire to keep quotes I regard of low value, even when genuine, I feel that where contentions arise about the "notability" or "quotability" of particular quotes which are not likely to be settled by reasoned arguments between adversaries, there should be a polling of consensus on the matter. That is usually the last resort available to us when policies are not or sometimes cannot be precise enough upon some matters. This is one reason why I have been very little interested in arguing about defining "quotability" in some artificially precise terms. No matter how precise and absolute a definition or rule might seem, there will usually be some loophole which would permit some extreme abuse of it, and a general sense of what is appropriate once again would have to be appealed to. I truly feel this will always be the case. ~ Kalki 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And in cases where some of the participants refuse to engage in honest discussion? I feel that is the case here. I purposely did not alter the content of that page precisely because of comments like yours above. However those IPs have thus far refused to engage in any discussion or debate on the matter. Take a look at the Talk page and notice that the sum total of the discussion from the most often reverter of the NPOV tag is, maybe, 4 lines. All of which are unsigned. All of them amount to "You're wrong!" with no explanation, no support, no discussion, no debate. -- Greyed 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Of the IPs Greyed mentions, 69.68.228.202 does not geolocate consistently but is in the US. 69.64.213.146 is in New York City, probably Brooklyn, and 68.38.199.0 is in Jersey City. This is not inconsistent with them all being the same person, but is far from conclusive.--Cato 23:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cato. Of the participants the only ones I feel might be the same are Cdorman2 and 68.38.199.0. Even then, let me be perfectly clear, I am not making any accusations of sock puppetry. It could be that those two are the same and simply someone who forgot to log in. I've done it, others here have done it, nothing malicious about it at all. -- Greyed 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)